Obamacare’s latest talking points: “Bad apples” and road apples

posted at 9:21 am on November 5, 2013 by Karl

To the surprise of no one, President Obama has been busy deflecting criticism of his “If you like your plan” lie by blaming insurance companies:

“Just shop around in the new marketplace,” he said. “You’re going to get a better deal.”

***

“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums, or bill you into bankruptcy,” Obama said.

Similarly, the New York Times’ widely-mocked Sunday editorial (claiming that Obama “misspoke” when he promised Americans who liked their insurance that they could keep it) referred to existing plans as “Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping.” In contrast, under O-care:

Starting next year, all plans sold in this country will be required to provide 10 essential benefits, including some, like mental health and substance abuse treatment and maternity and newborn care, that are not now part of many policies.

How do these new talking points stack up against reality? Not so well.

One of the few things Obamacare supporters like Josh Barro and opponents like Mark Steyn agree upon is that governments (state and federal) have had their mitts all over the health insurance industry for decades. By 2004, the high cost of health services regulation was responsible for more than seven million Americans lacking health insurance, or one in six of the average daily uninsured. Obama’s latest talking point tries to pretend otherwise.

As Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates (an expert even acknowledged by Ezra Klein and his ilk), points out, individual health insurance policies have been regulated for decades by the states. Almost every state in the union has dozens of health insurance mandates (Texas has 62 such mandates). The most common mandates, adopted in almost every state, cover mammography, maternity stays, mental health parity, and alcohol & substance abuse — i.e., the sorts of mandates the NYT thinks are so revolutionary. (Incidentally, Laszewski is one of those who likes his plan and can’t keep it — and by no stretch of the imagination could it be called “junk” insurance. But I digress.)

When the President refers to these “bad apples,” to whom is he referring? No doubt there are some; it is not difficult to find anecdotes on the ‘net. But why didn’t Obama name names? Doesn’t he have a list, much like Joe McCarthy?

The first major story on mass insurance cancellations was published by Kaiser Health News (and seen widely via NBC’s site). That story had a list:

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh [a non-profit, the largest health insurer in Pennsylvania and West Virgina -K] is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

In short, Obama’s latest talking point largely depends on convincing people that Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a “junk” insurer. But the 7-16 million people being kicked off their plans (not to mention their families and friends) know Blue Cross is not a “bad apple.” And as much as Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer might wish otherwise, neither he nor his boss will have much luck painting United Healthcare as a villain after paying $1.2 million on behalf of stage IV cancer survivor Edie Sundby. Obama’s “bad apples” whopper will fail as badly as “If you like your plan,” because both are disconnected from the reality of the situation.

And what of Obama’s claim that people are going to get a “better deal” in “the new marketplace,” once the Administration gets it to work? As Jake Tapper (via the Allahpundit — I am such a suck-up) reported, the Obama administration’s Obamacare ‘War Room’ is concerned consumers will be disappointed by sticker shock and limited choice in “the new marketplace.” The Administration’s fears are well-founded. Again, Laszewski explains the problems in all their wonkery, with examples, summarized as follows:

Consumers will be faced with a dilemma — accept *** lower benefits and limited provider networks for the lower prices (benefit shock) or buy a more expensive plan and pay the difference out of pocket (rate shock).

Moreover, as Ed Morrissey (again — I am such a suck-up) notes, these problems ultimately may affect up to 93 million Americans, if the employer mandate ever goes into effect.

Of course, none of this is to say the health insurance sector, particularly the individual market, was not in need of reform. You can completely disagree with Obamacare as policy and still recognize that. However, what has become impossible for public — and even the media — to ignore in the past month is that the Administration was profoundly dishonest in how it campaigned for Obamacare. The President’s latest talking points, even if echoed by the New York Times, demonstrate only that the bait-and-switch continues.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

To the surprise of no one, President Obama has been busy deflecting criticism of his “If you like your plan” lie

The most intriguing thing about “The Lie” is that the lie was told to DEMOCRATS!. Face it, Republicans were not going to vote for this can of horse manure no how, no way. The boy king had to convince Democrats to vote for it, so he lied to them…and they keep eating it up!

“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums, or bill you into bankruptcy,” Obama said.

So, let me get this straight: Because those “bad apple” insurance companies raised premiums by $5 , our “road apple” President is going to cut off their right to insure us, force us to pay more than 20 new taxes, and raise our premiums and deductibles by an average of 40%! For LESS coverage we want, so we can pay fore MORE coverage of things we don’t want!!

BEND OVER Americans, you’re gonna take this, and you’re gonna like it!

Of course, none of this is to say the health insurance sector, particularly the individual market, was not in need of reform.

ObamaCare has created a world in which just simply repealing ObamaCare constitutes a major reform. Repealing ObamaCare would reduce costs, increase access, and improve quality. So yes, we have an alternative!

Even people with so-called “Cadillac” plans are getting cancellation notices because their coverage doesn’t meet Obamacare’s standards.

Via American Commitment:

. . . Millions of Americans are being told their plans are “lousy” or “crummy” because they are indeed, in a hyper-literal sense of the word, “substandard.”

Meaning they fail to meet the new standard for so-called Essential Health Benefits required of all plans in the individual and small-group markets when they lose grandfather status. This is the “standard,” in brief [seen above]:

This “standard” excluded nearly every plan in the individual market.

According to HealthPocket: “The data shows that there will be a near complete transformation of the individual and family health insurance market starting in 2014. Less than 2% of the existing health plans in the individual market today provide all the Essential Health Benefits required under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).”

Even the best of the best plans are being canceled in the individual market. Bob Laszewski, a top industry analyst, described his cancelation:

“I have been in this business for 40 years. I know junk health insurance when I see it and I know ‘Cadillac’ health insurance when I see it. Right now I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance… The new plan would have a deductible $500 higher than the one I now have and a lot more if I go “out-of-network” inside the rest of the Blue Cross national network… And, wait all you people telling me rate shock does not exist, the new far more restricted plan costs 66% more than our current monthly premium.”

“Just shop around in the new marketplace,” he said. “You’re going to get a better deal.”

And by “better” he means a policy with much higher premiums, much bigger deductibles, a much more limited list of approved providers, and a bunch of coverages you don’t need or want and will never use.

Oh, and you’ll be getting that “better” policy from the same “bad apple” insurance company that used to provide your “sub-standard junk” policy — you remember, that was the policy that cost you less money, had lower deductibles, provided you with coverages you actually wanted, and that gave you a bigger list of providers to choose from.

WASHINGTON — The Affordable Care Act is the biggest new health care program in decades, but the Obama administration has ruled that neither the federal insurance exchange nor the federal subsidies paid to insurance companies on behalf of low-income people are “federal health care programs.”

The surprise decision, disclosed last week, exempts subsidized health insurance from a law that bans rebates, kickbacks, bribes and certain other financial arrangements in federal health programs, stripping law enforcement of a powerful tool used to fight fraud in other health care programs, like Medicare.

The main purpose of the anti-kickback law, as described by federal courts in scores of Medicare cases, is to protect patients and taxpayers against the undue influence of money on medical decisions.

What is most distressing is that the administration continues to obviously, transparently lie; in fact, that willingness to look America in the face night after night and lie is the only transparency in the whole circus act there.

They lie, they get caught. They lie some more. They send the talking clown robot Jay Carney-Barker out to lie again, or sneer at the few reporters willing to finally call him on his disengenuousness (thank you Jon Karl).

This sort of disdain for American and Americans is almost Putin-like. I’ve never seen anything like it from our elected politicians.

You make a very excellent point fellow dirtseller, we’re not so offended by the particular lie because we never believed any of it anyway. He lied to his own voters and they will go down defending him no matter what. Politics does make for some very strange scenarios.

By 2004, the high cost of health services regulation was responsible for more than seven million Americans lacking health insurance, or one in six of the average daily uninsured.

So fewer people would have problems getting health insurance if the market were less regulated?

In other words the best health care ‘reform’ to get more people insured is less regulation… because the more you add to the overhead the fewer the people that can afford it. And if you think it was expensive in a regulated market, then you will faint dead away at the cost of it being ‘free’ or from a ‘single payer’.

No amount of lies and spin is going to save Obamacare… Even before the suffering of Obamacare began it was hated by majority of voters, now with the beginning of the suffering that is certain to get much worse for millions and tens of millions of people Obamcare death will be much sooner than some expected…

Here’s the problem, you can’t pee on someones leg and tell them it’s raining. A young healthy single male had his 120 dollar a month PPO plan cancelled by Blue Cross. He had a 2500 dollar deductible and 100% coverage after that. He even had some free health screenings. The bronze plan on the state exchange would cost him over 400 dollars a month, has a 3,000 dollar deductible and 12,000 out of pocket. It also is a 60/40 plan outside the network which does not include hardly any local doctors. He will pay the fine. Not only is Obamacare not better, it is costlier and greatly limits choice and quality of care. What the GOP should be pushing for is not a delay but a 100% startup of this nightmare. No waivers, no delays for anyone. Everyone needs to know the full extent of the damage caused by the ACA now. Allowing it to go forward in a piecemeal fashion, limits the outcry and makes it harder to repeal later.

“But for us Democrats, Obamacare is a badge of honor. Because no matter who you are, what stage of life you’re in, this law is a good thing.” – Kathleen Sebelius

workingclass artist on November 5, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Hah! Sebelius is Julia. What she doesn’t mention is the robbing from the young and poor to finance health services for withered old prunes like her. But, of course, Sebelius refuses to go to the exchanges and sign up for the program she’s calling a good thing.

If these millions of cancelled plans are “junk,” then why are so many of the Obamacare substitutes so vastly inferior and more expensive?

Obamacare is making Robert Laszewski, a respected health insurance expert, lose his top-notch insurance plan, with which he “can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network … without higher deductibles and co-pays … Wellness benefits are without a deductible. It covers mental health, drugs, maternity, anything I can think of.”

Obamacare offers Laszewski a plan that costs 66 percent more each month, severely restricts his doctor network, and carries a deductible $500 higher than his old plan. So tell me – which plan is “junk?”

Such stories abound. At the Daily Beast, David Frum describes in greater detail what he had earlier summed up in one tweet.

“I already had a high-deductible plan,” he wrote. “Now I can buy a plan with double the deductible for only $200 a month more.” (My own experience shopping the D.C. exchange produced results similar to Frum’s.)

Washingtonian contributing editor Art Levine, an Obamacare supporter, wrote at the Huffington Post that he’s losing his relatively expensive ($530 per month premium) but comprehensive plan.

A comparable Obamacare plan will cost him twice as much. “The spin being offered now is that the plans being canceled by and large don’t cover mental health or reasonably-priced medications or maternity care,” he writes. “ But that’s simply not true, as my plan’s benefits indicate.”

L.A. Times guest blogger Matthew Fleischer is losing his “bare-bones” plan. Under Obamacare, he will pay 43 percent more each month for an even more bare-bones plan, with higher co-pays and an annual out-of pocket limit $1,450 higher.

As for the program’s subsidies, Fleischer notes that even if he could get his income down to $30,000 (not much in California), he would receive only about $40 per month, leaving him still paying more – and getting less in return if he ever gets sick.

When Obama claims your old plan was “junk,” he’s not leveling with you. Your health plan wasn’t canceled out of some kind of concern that you are insufficiently insured. Rather, you simply must pay more – and get less – to make Obamacare’s finances work.

Rather than prioritize federal or state government budgets to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions – treating them as the rare special cases they are – Obama chose to finance their care by making you pay more into the system and get less out of it whenever you eventually become sick. Someone out there is benefiting from Obamacare. It just isn’t you.

Middle-income cancellation victims are the Affordable Care Act’s first cash cow. Their insurance will now be less affordable and of lower quality – or to use the common phrase, “junk.”

Everyone needs to know the full extent of the damage caused by the ACA now. Allowing it to go forward in a piecemeal fashion, limits the outcry and makes it harder to repeal later.

fight like a girl on November 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Personally, I’m looking forward to the point where people who have been canceled from their existing coverage are unable to sign up for anything because of the website “glitches” before they find themselves without any coverage at all.

Obamacare is the law of the land. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court. In short, it is perfect as it is. Detractors that would defund or repeal it are the real problem here. /

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM

In reality the court upheld the right of the congress to levy taxes. Furthermore, this aberration is the law of the left, not the land, although they did force it’s affects upon the land. It will eventually be repealed or modified to the extent it is unrecognizable from its present state.

You can always detect when Obama is lying, which is 99% of the time he speaks. He sucks in that bottom lip to the point that it appears he has a big cud of something under the lip.

You have to understand that our country is simply doomed beyond repair. Obama and many of his henchmen can look citizens straight in the eye, lie and get away with it. The vast majority in this country don’t care anymore about the honesty or integrity of an elected pol, from the local mayor all the way to the POTUS. The “stuff” generations are here to stay and it is only going to get worse.

Forget about a turnaround to fiscal sanity and high moral values. It just isn’t going to happen. Conservatism is dead with no chance of ever returning. The “good old days” are never to be seen again. If you think I’m wrong, it’s wishful thinking on your part.

You see, there is no viable alternative. We all talk the “Constitution”, but that is a dying framework for the country we live in today. In my lifetime, I have never heard of a presidential candidate with a truly alternate plan that appeals to the conservative base, the independents and the few sane Democrats that steer clear of Obama and his people. Things could, and probably will, get very ugly in the political future of the U.S. The prospect for “one party rule” for decades is looming around the corner and the masses will be kept at bay with the ever-increasing promises of “stuff.”

Not all is gloom and doom if one can accept reality, learn to adapt to a much different way of life., and abandon the concept of “right and wrong.” Just jump on the bandwagon of liberalism and embrace it with gusto and determination. There are riches to be had if you play the right game and join the winning side.

This is how your worthless Senator is trying to fool you into thinking that she didn’t vote for Obamacare-

In a statement, Landrieu added that “Many people may find better plans in the marketplaces that offer superior coverage for them at a good value and at a potentially lower cost. But if people want to keep their current plans, they should be able to do so.”

Personally, I’m looking forward to the point where people who have been canceled from their existing coverage are unable to sign up for anything because of the website “glitches” before they find themselves without any coverage at all.

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:01 AM

And my fervent wish is that every federal employee, from the President on down, and every person who voted for the democrats, has to sign up for Obamacare and not get any tax payer subsidy that is not allowed to the general public.

“This law will cut costs and make coverage more affordable for families and small businesses. It’s reform that brings — that begins to bring down our government’s long-term structural deficit. It’s reform that finally extends the opportunity to purchase coverage to the millions who currently don’t have it — and includes tough new consumer protections to guarantee greater stability, security and control for the millions who do have health insurance.”

President Barack Obama

Remarks by the President on the Affordable Care Act and the New Patients’ Bill of Rights
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary
June 22, 2010

“So let me begin by saying this to you and to the American people: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage — they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. … If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. … No one will take it away, no matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: Fix what’s broken and build on what works. And that’s what we intend to do.”

President Barack Obama

Remarks By The President At The Annual Conference Of The American Medical Association
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary
June 15, 2009

“Let me also say that — let me also address a illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe — and I’ve taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief — that it’s important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.”

President Barack Obama

Remarks By The President At The Annual Conference Of The American Medical Association
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary
June 15, 2009

Washingtonian contributing editor Art Levine, an Obamacare supporter, wrote at the Huffington Post that he’s losing his relatively expensive ($530 per month premium) but comprehensive plan.

A comparable Obamacare plan will cost him twice as much. “The spin being offered now is that the plans being canceled by and large don’t cover mental health or reasonably-priced medications or maternity care,” he writes. “ But that’s simply not true, as my plan’s benefits indicate.”

This doesn’t show a REAL and additional cost to the new Obamacare policies, and that is the very real possibility that the network of doctors and hospitals will be so small that it becomes an impossible burden to bear. Need a hospital procedure? What are the odds that the hospital, the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, the radiologist, the CAT-scan operation, and every other doctor that consults on the various tests involved will be IN-NETWORK?

Much less under Obamacare policies.

The odds of you getting hit by OUT of network costs will be much higher with Obamacare policies.

“This legislation will also lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible. And it will help lift a decades-long drag on our economy.”

President Barack Obama

Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Health Insurance Reform Bill
The White House, The Office of the Press Secretary
March 23, 2010

And my fervent wish is that every federal employee, from the President on down, and every person who voted for the democrats, has to sign up for Obamacare and not get any tax payer subsidy that is not allowed to the general public.

fight like a girl on November 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

That better include the Supreme Court, and all the Federal and Appeals Courts as well.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason we need young, healthy Americans to sign up for health insurance is to cover the costs for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions? But, with the “Death Panels” rationing care and deciding who will get treatment (remember BHO’s comment about grandma having to take a pain pill rather than have that hip surgery), won’t the elderly and those with expensive, pre-existing conditions be denied or rationed treatment? Won’t the cuts to Medicare and the increase of Medicaid enrollments further restrict access to quality care?

With the “Death Panels”, it seems to me that there would be no need for the young and healthy to sign up for expensive health insurance plans (assuming they would, which I doubt).

Someone needs to ask him, “Are all insurance companies ‘bad apples,’ or are there some good ones out there? Couldn’t people getting a bad deal simply take their business elsewhere?”

CurtZHP on November 5, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Right, well he’s not talking to anyone out there who owns a single share of stock or understands the rudiments of supply and demand. He’s talking to his audience of no-information voters and retards, excuse my French.

Our “better deal” was a 14% increase in contributions to our employer-provided coverage. The company absorbed the rest of the increases. HR identified three of the new Obamacare taxes– er, fees– that we need to fund:

“How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.”

President Barack Obama

Remarks by the President on Health Care Reform in Strongsville, Ohio
March 2010

Competition across state lines would have solved the whole thing. Far to easy an idea for DC to comprehend.

Mini-14 on November 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

State lines??..hell, under Crimecare, you’re restricted to county lines.
At least that is what I’ve read.

Mimzey on November 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

True; some of those requiring individual insurance and getting hit with outrageous premiums should shop neighboring counties for quotes. This might be a situation where a move would save a lot of money, or maybe using your parents’ or childrens’ address, maybe the summer cottage address, etc. Of course, I am not suggesting fraud, simply a process of location optimization.

One of the old selling points of Obamacare was “portability”, -taking your own healthcare from place to place, job to job, etc. What happened to that? Why did Democratics give us just the opposite?

Why is this lie not in the news as much as the “keep your doctor” lie?

“We said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.” — Barack Obama

Moreover, as Ed Morrissey (again — I am such a suck-up) notes, these problems ultimately may affect up to 93 million Americans, if the employer mandate ever goes into effect.

With all due respect to Captain Ed, even he low-balled the number of people losing their insurance. A new study cited by Fox News set the number at 129 million Americans. If some of these people are either married to non-working spouses or have children, this would represent a MAJORITY of the American people!!

I wonder, though, when we discuss “impact”, how many voters won’t feel the pain directly? The stories will be lost on them because it is outside their experience? I’m talking here about all the “children” carried on their parents’ insurance, and all the spouses who are insured through their significant other. I know at least some of those spouses will be intimately enough involved with household decisions to feel the impact, but how many aren’t? Is it enough to keep the “hope” of ObamaCare alive?

” Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient, but as our second president famously said, “facts are stubborn things.”

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to “uncover” the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry…”

By 2004, the high cost of health services regulation was responsible for more than seven million Americans lacking health insurance, or one in six of the average daily uninsured.

You mean we have 42 million uninsured? Where does that number come from? In one of his celebrated speeches before eventual enactment of Obamacare, even Obama avoided the bogus 50M, 47M, and 45M figures that had often been used, and he used the magic number ob 31M, which was supposed to exclude the illegal immigrants.

But even that 31M is bogus. About a third of those were those eligible for Medicaid, who simply hadn’t enrolled. Another third of those were healthy young people who simply chose not to get insurance. So those two thirds weren’t under any hardship and didn’t need to be saved. Only the final third, the truly uninsurable, should have been the concern of any legislative fix.

The Administration’s focus was never on reforming the healthcare industry. Reforming the healthcare industry was little more than just a means to a desired end…. expanding big government to control 1/6th of the national economy and a massive expansion of wealth redistribution in order to fit their definitions of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’.

By achieving the latter, in their minds, healthcare reform is a success despite the utter failure of real reform being accomplished.

All of these lies, spin, and obfuscations are just the effort to continue the charade and mask the real end goal.

One recent article reported that ALL O’care plans offered in NY are EPO, Exclusive Provider Organization, plans which will pay only if you go to a doctor, clinic, or hospital that is in the plan. Out of network the plans pay ZERO.